The process started on a positive note. Communication and coordination from the HR side were professional, clear, and respectful throughout, which I appreciated.
The first interview was engaging and values-driven. There was a strong emphasis on respect, honesty, and maintaining a healthy work–life balance—principles that resonated with me and set a positive tone for the process.
The second interview, however, was a very different experience. The tone felt noticeably more adversarial. The focus shifted heavily toward very specific company and client knowledge, with limited room for discussion around approach, reasoning, or transferable skills. Despite having prepared thoroughly, the format felt more like a test than a conversation.
I was also asked to roleplay scenarios and respond to hypothetical situations, but the interaction involved frequent interruptions and dismissive pushback, which made it difficult to fully articulate my thinking. There was limited time allocated for questions, so I left the interview without a clear understanding of the role’s day-to-day responsibilities or team dynamics.
While I understand the importance of evaluating candidates under pressure, I believe interviews are most effective when they allow for mutual exchange and insight.
